The media has been all over the story of the NY Times hypocrisy in favoring Islam while criticizing Catholicism. Mark Steyn at NRO here, Daily Caller here, The Blaze here, Volokh here, Business Insider here, Human Events here, Catholic Online here, RWN here, Mediaite here, and the uber-left, Soros-funded Think Progress is in a tizzy. You will notice that in the Think Progress piece they never mention the anti-Catholic ad or Times inconsistency. But they could not have missed them, as those are the central aspects of the story. So they know. This proves that Think Progress intentionally misleads its readership. The New York Times Rejects Anti-Muslim Advertisement makes it sound as if Geller just wanted to run an anti-Islam ad out of racistislamophbicantimuslimbigotry.

I have been inundated with interviews all morning on shows all over the country and a few from Europe. And so when FOX news called, I was unable to make it to the studio, but I was able to fit in the phone interview in this video. Note FOX's take on the story. They call me an anti-Islam activist. I am a counter-jihadist. Why doesn't the media distinguish between the two? Their lack of distinction implies the two are interchangeable. How islamophobic! FOX refused to run a graphic of either ad, as "both were offensive." More abridgement of free speech in adherence to the sharia. They do not address the motive, the fear, the sharia behind the New York Times' craven hypocrisy. Instead, they focused on the inconsistency of the Times accepting one ad and rejecting another, without clearly explaining why or giving the reasons for the inconsistency, which accords with FOX's increasing tendency not to address this subject matter at all.﻿

Megyn Kelly refers to our ad as an anti-Islam ad. It is not. It is a rebuttal ad. Also, it bears noting that Trace Gallagher ran the Times' pathetic excuse unchallenged. In my interview with Fox, which they severely edited, I questioned the dishonesty of the Times' position, when they have done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. How many front page stories ran on Abu Ghraib? Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan? Why didn't Fox mention any of that? Why did Fox give the New York Times a free pass, while jumping to repeat the Islamic supremacists' "anti-Islam" label of me?

The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed a nearly identical ad aimed at Muslims.

The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”

But when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.

"This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the "gold standard" in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation," Geller told FoxNews.com.

Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims … [do] you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims… Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam’s ‘prophet.’”

“The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger,” Times officials told Geller in a letter dated March 13. The letter said the Times would consider publishing the ad in a few months, and said “we publish this type of advertising, even those we disagree with, because we believe in the First Amendment.”

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, called the first ad “vile.” But he said running it was a “judgment call.” However, the decision not to run Geller’s ad shows an agenda, he told FoxNews.com.

“It shows the disparate treatment and the duplicity of The New York Times,” Donohue said. “You can trash some religions, like Roman Catholicism, with impunity, but you cannot trash Islam?”

Robert Christie, the Times’ senior vice-president for corporate communications, did not return a call for comment.

Comments

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on FOX News Discussing NY TImes Hypocrisy

The media has been all over the story of the NY Times hypocrisy in favoring Islam while criticizing Catholicism. Mark Steyn at NRO here, Daily Caller here, The Blaze here, Volokh here, Business Insider here, Human Events here, Catholic Online here, RWN here, Mediaite here, and the uber-left, Soros-funded Think Progress is in a tizzy. You will notice that in the Think Progress piece they never mention the anti-Catholic ad or Times inconsistency. But they could not have missed them, as those are the central aspects of the story. So they know. This proves that Think Progress intentionally misleads its readership. The New York Times Rejects Anti-Muslim Advertisement makes it sound as if Geller just wanted to run an anti-Islam ad out of racistislamophbicantimuslimbigotry.

I have been inundated with interviews all morning on shows all over the country and a few from Europe. And so when FOX news called, I was unable to make it to the studio, but I was able to fit in the phone interview in this video. Note FOX's take on the story. They call me an anti-Islam activist. I am a counter-jihadist. Why doesn't the media distinguish between the two? Their lack of distinction implies the two are interchangeable. How islamophobic! FOX refused to run a graphic of either ad, as "both were offensive." More abridgement of free speech in adherence to the sharia. They do not address the motive, the fear, the sharia behind the New York Times' craven hypocrisy. Instead, they focused on the inconsistency of the Times accepting one ad and rejecting another, without clearly explaining why or giving the reasons for the inconsistency, which accords with FOX's increasing tendency not to address this subject matter at all.﻿

Megyn Kelly refers to our ad as an anti-Islam ad. It is not. It is a rebuttal ad. Also, it bears noting that Trace Gallagher ran the Times' pathetic excuse unchallenged. In my interview with Fox, which they severely edited, I questioned the dishonesty of the Times' position, when they have done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. How many front page stories ran on Abu Ghraib? Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan? Why didn't Fox mention any of that? Why did Fox give the New York Times a free pass, while jumping to repeat the Islamic supremacists' "anti-Islam" label of me?

The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed a nearly identical ad aimed at Muslims.

The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”

But when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.

"This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the "gold standard" in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation," Geller told FoxNews.com.

Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims … [do] you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims… Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam’s ‘prophet.’”

“The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger,” Times officials told Geller in a letter dated March 13. The letter said the Times would consider publishing the ad in a few months, and said “we publish this type of advertising, even those we disagree with, because we believe in the First Amendment.”

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, called the first ad “vile.” But he said running it was a “judgment call.” However, the decision not to run Geller’s ad shows an agenda, he told FoxNews.com.

“It shows the disparate treatment and the duplicity of The New York Times,” Donohue said. “You can trash some religions, like Roman Catholicism, with impunity, but you cannot trash Islam?”

Robert Christie, the Times’ senior vice-president for corporate communications, did not return a call for comment.